Governments tend to define democracy as narrowly as possible. The story they tell goes as follows: you vote; the majority party takes office; you leave it to govern on your behalf for the next four or five years. If you don’t like one of its policies, your representative will put their own ambitions, party loyalty and pressure from powerful interests aside to ensure your voice is heard.
We can trust the government to spend our money wisely; to defend minorities against more powerful or larger groups; to resist undemocratic forces such as oligarchs, the media they control and corporate lobby groups. We can trust it to ensure everyone’s needs are met; workers are not exploited; our neighbourhoods and quality of life are not sacrificed to corporate profits. We can trust it not to abuse the political process; not to wage wars of aggression against other nations; not to break the law. There cannot be many people who have lived in the UK – or many other nations – for the past few years and still believe this fairytale.
We have seen what happens if we leave politics to governments. Fairly elected or not, they will, without effective public pressure, abuse their power. They will change political rules to favour their party, subordinate public interest to that of corporations and billionaires, beat up vulnerable groups, sacrifice our common future to expediency and impose ever more oppressive laws to bind us.
Trust in governments destroys democracy, which survives only through constant challenge. It requires endless disruption of the cosy relationship between our representatives and powerful forces: the billionaire press, plutocrats, political donors, friends in high places. What challenge and disruption mean, above all, is protest.

Protest is not, as governments like ours seek to portray it, a political luxury. It is the bedrock of democracy. Without it, few of the democratic rights we enjoy would exist: the universal franchise; civil rights; equality before the law; legal same-sex relationships; progressive taxation; fair conditions of employment; public services and a social safety net. Even the weekend is the result of protest action: strikes by garment workers in the US. A government that cannot tolerate protest is a government that cannot tolerate democracy.
Such governments are becoming a global norm. In the UK, two policing bills in quick succession seek to shut down all effective forms of protest. They enable the police to stop almost any demonstration on the grounds that it is causing “serious disruption”, a concept so loose, it could include any kind of noise. They would ban chaining yourself to railings or other fixtures, and “interfering” with “key national infrastructure”, which could mean almost anything. They expand police stop and search powers, an effective deterrent to civic action by black and brown people, who are disproportionately targeted by them. They can even ban named people from engaging in any protest, on grounds that appear entirely arbitrary. These are dictators’ powers.
In the US, state legislatures have been undermining the federal right to protest, empowering the police to use catch-all offences such as “trespass” or “disrupting the peace” to break up demonstrations and make arrests. Proposed laws in states such as Oklahoma and New Hampshire have sought to grant immunity to drivers who run over protesters, or vigilantes who shoot them. In Russia, a new law against “discrediting the armed forces” has been used to prosecute dissenters engaging in actions as mild as writing “no to war” in the snow. Similar draconian laws are being imposed by governments in many other nations.
Why do governments want to ban protest? Because it’s effective. Why do they want us to accept their narrow vision of democracy? Because it makes our power ineffective.
0